Reilly B M, Wagner M, Magnussen C R, Ross J, Papa L, Ash J
Department of Medicine, St Mary's Hospital, University of Rochester (NY), School of Medicine and Dentistry, USA.
Arch Intern Med. 1995 Nov 27;155(21):2317-23.
Hospitalization presents an opportunity for physicians to discuss advance directives with patients and to encourage completion of health care proxies.
To prospectively promote discussion and documentation of treatment-specific directives about life-sustaining interventions (cardiopulmonary resuscitation, admission to critical care units, mechanical ventilation, electrical cardioversion, and vasopressor therapy) among unselected medical inpatients in a community teaching hospital.
We conducted a time-series intervention trial from January 1, 1991, through June 30 1993, divided into three phases. During the education phase, we provided reminders, education, and feedback to attending physicians; during the intervention phase, we promoted a new documentation form for directives to be used by attending physicians; during the control phase, no interventions occurred. We studied consecutive patients (N = 1780) admitted to the hospital acute medical service in each of the following 10 periods: three in the education phase (n = 598), three in the intervention phase (n = 826), and four in the control phase (n = 356). The primary outcome measures were the frequency and content of directives documented by attending physicians in their patients' hospital charts. Secondary outcome measures included physicians' and patients' attitudes about directives, surveyed repeatedly.
The proportion of inpatients with directives increased significantly during the intervention phase (62.5% vs 23.6% during the education phase and 25.3% during the control period, P < .001, Pearson chi 2 test). During the final intervention phase, 227 (83.2%) of 273 inpatients had directives documented in the hospital chart. Increases in clinically important ("impact") directives usually involved intensive care, not do-not-resuscitate status. Overall, 366 (86.7%) of 422 physician-attested directives agreed with the treatment preferences of interviewed patients (kappa ranges, 0.53 to 0.79). Physicians' attitudes about and interest in directives improved.
Institutional interventions can facilitate attending physicians' documentation of treatment-specific directives about life-sustaining care for most medical inpatients. More research is needed to confirm the effect of these efforts on quality and cost of hospital care, patients' autonomy, and their eventual execution of durable directives and proxies.
住院治疗为医生与患者讨论预先指示并鼓励完成医疗保健代理人指定提供了契机。
前瞻性地促进一所社区教学医院中未选定的内科住院患者就维持生命干预措施(心肺复苏、入住重症监护病房、机械通气、电复律和血管加压素治疗)的特定治疗指示进行讨论并记录在案。
我们于1991年1月1日至1993年6月30日进行了一项时间序列干预试验,分为三个阶段。在教育阶段,我们向主治医生提供提醒、教育和反馈;在干预阶段,我们推广一种新的指示记录表格供主治医生使用;在对照阶段,不进行任何干预。我们研究了在以下10个时间段中连续入住医院急性内科病房的患者(N = 1780):教育阶段3个时间段(n = 598)、干预阶段3个时间段(n = 826)和对照阶段4个时间段(n = 356)。主要结局指标是主治医生在患者医院病历中记录的指示的频率和内容。次要结局指标包括医生和患者对指示的态度,进行多次调查。
在干预阶段,有指示的住院患者比例显著增加(干预阶段为62.5%,教育阶段为23.6%,对照阶段为25.3%,P <.001,Pearson卡方检验)。在最后一个干预阶段,273名住院患者中有227名(83.2%)的指示记录在医院病历中。具有临床重要性(“影响”)的指示的增加通常涉及重症监护,而非不进行心肺复苏状态。总体而言,422份医生认证的指示中有366份(86.7%)与受访患者的治疗偏好一致(kappa范围为0.53至0.79)。医生对指示的态度和兴趣有所改善。
机构干预可以促进主治医生为大多数内科住院患者记录关于维持生命护理的特定治疗指示。需要更多研究来证实这些努力对医院护理质量和成本、患者自主权以及他们最终执行长期指示和代理人指定的影响。